As much as this conversation gets played out, I still find it really interesting. On one hand, there is a difference between free speech as a legal term, and th

As much as this conversation gets played out, I still find it really interesting. On one hand, there is a difference between free speech as a legal term, and the free speech principles that undergird it. You can argue that Google should abide by free speech principles in allowing open discourse, regardless of the legal requirement to do so. On the other hand, a fundamental component of free speech (expression in this case) principles is the right to free association. Google therefore should exercise its own judgement in selecting those with whom they do associate, and resist external demands to associate with someone they would rather not. I believe that Google should feel free, both legally and socially, to act according to their conscience as a company. However, I believe that their conscience, as a massively powerful part of online communication, should be to remain neutral towards any legal communication that takes place on their platform. I think that's a more effective moral stance than the one they are taking.